Legal Opinion

Maxwell v. Jimeno

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 2, 1928No. Docket No. 4751PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

VALENTINE, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a, judgment of the superior court in favor of plaintiff and against defendants. The appeal is taken on the judgment-roll alone.

The action was to recover $862.95 for work and labor performed and materials furnished. The answer admits that plaintiff performed certain work and furnished certain materials, but denies they were of the value of $862.95, or of any value, except as set forth in a certain agreement incorporated in and set up as a part of the answer and as a defense. It is alleged in the answer that it was under this agreement that…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Moore v. CoppCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Mock v. City of Santa RosaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Minor v. BaldridgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Sterling v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Brooks v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Philpott v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Auer v. FrankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  3. Miller v. McLaglenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  4. Jensen v. Harry H. Culver & Co.Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1932
  5. Fairbairn v. EatonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API